By Angelene Warnock

2/27/15
Touro University ED 790

As we move towards the Common Core and

the Next Generation Science Standards,
science teachers are being asked to teach
literacy skills alongside content.

Competent writing requires the ability to craft

an argument, provide evidence, and critically
analyze data. This requires literacy skills
beyond content knowledge.
Proficiency in writing about academic content
is a critical 21st century skill.

Students in the US underperform in math and

science, and display generally low levels of
science literacy (PISA 2012)
Writing is acknowledged as an essential way of
integrating and demonstrating knowledge, but
relatively few studies provide empirical
evidence demonstrating a robust connection
between writing, critical thinking, and deeper
content learning. (Trautmann 2009)

Many science teachers report feeling

unprepared to teach literacy skills and
unwilling to divert time from content. (Knapp 2013,
Papalardo 2010, Taylor, et al 2003 )

Social cognitive theory supports a

constructivist approach to teaching writing.

 Peer-to-peer critique
of written work has
been used to reduce
teacher workload and
to help students
improve their writing
skills and gain
ownership over their
learning, which leads
to greater academic
resiliency. (Odom 2009, Lu
2012, Akers 2013)

It also found that

students benefit more as
assessors than
assessees, particularly
when identifying
problems and making
suggestions.

Does writing improve students ability to

effectively communicate learning about science
content?

Does the peer review process help students to

think critically?
How can online tools such as Google Docs and
Doctopus help streamline editing and assessment
processes for teachers?

Students submitted
draft essays via Google
Docs
Students given in-class
opportunity to review
two peers.

Students were assessed

on the helpfulness of
their feedback and
specific suggestions
made on peers papers.

Doctopus and Goobric

add on were used to
streamline assessment
of final draft.
Use of Google tools
increased speed of
teacher assessment by
20%.

Student scores: Fall 2013 (baseline, no scaffolds)

3 classes (similar demographics; n=36,35,32)

Written essay, assessed on CRA rubric

Content Test, assessed after writing essay

Student scores: Spring 2014

2 classes given scaffold + peer editing
1 class given scaffold only

1 peer reviewed draft; Written essay assessed on

CRA rubric
Content test, assessed after writing essay

CRA assessment scores for students who

participated in Peer Review and Editing
increased more than for students who did not
participate in Peer Review.

CLASS A, B

CLASS C

(SCAFFOLD+PEER REVIEW)

(SCAFFOLD ONLY)

73% of students who

participated in Peer
review increased their
test scores.
50% of students who
did not participate in
Peer Review increased
their test scores.

Average content
scores for students
who participated in
Peer Review increased
by 4 points.
Average content
scores for students
who did not
participate in Peer
Review increased by 3
points.

Determine: does increasing science writing

measurably improve science literacy and
content knowledge in secondary students?
Collect and compare CRA scores, PBL based
content scores, and Science Common
Assessment scores at NTHS
Describe which specific science literacy
scaffolds work well and postulate why
Create blog/website articulating one science
teachers journey through the CRAs.

I am concerned with data-driven instructional

methods and assessment strategies. The CRAs,
the Common Core Standards, and the NGSS
standards are new and relatively untested in
the field.
My goal is to provide data in order to analyze the
efficacy of scientific literacy scaffolds and
context in order to illuminate whether this type
of scaffolded writing is worth the time it takes
to complete the tasks and assessments.